Glenn Hopkins, the man accused of stabbing a Muni passenger who purportedly intervened on behalf of two women last week, pleaded not guilty Monday to attempted murder and other charges, and was ordered to remain in jail without bail.
Hopkins, 44, denied the charges during his arraignment at the Hall of Justice. His attorney, Deputy Public Defender Leo Fissel, told the court the defense was not yet asking for his release, but could do so later. Fissel also asserted Hopkins’ right to a speedy trial.
San Francisco Superior Court Judge John D. Echeverria ruled that Hopkins should remain in custody, saying there was strong evidence supporting the charges, and that releasing him could put other people at risk.
In explaining the decision, Echeverria noted that Hopkins was on parole at the time of the alleged Sept. 23 attack, and has several pending cases involving alleged violations of court orders.
Hopkins is accused of pulling a box cutter and repeatedly swinging it at a passenger’s neck and throat after the man stepped between Hopkins and two women aboard a Muni bus in SoMa, according to District Attorney Brooke Jenkins.
Prosecutors have charged Hopkins with attempted murder and assault with a deadly weapon against a public-transit passenger, along with allegations that he used a deadly weapon and caused serious injury.
The judge also issued an order barring Hopkins from contacting Robert Meza, or coming within 100 yards of him if Hopkins is later released from custody.
Deputy District Attorney Blake Hyde subsequently confirmed to reporters after the hearing that Meza is the stabbing victim. Meza, who was hospitalized with life-threatening injuries after the attack, is expected to survive, according to Jenkins.
A preliminary hearing, during which a judge will decide whether there is enough evidence for the case to go to trial, is scheduled for Oct. 8 at 9 a.m.
It’s astonishing to me that this career criminal with offenses ranging from sexual assault, to force ably restraining his victims, to threatening and harassing to dissuade testimony, to violating court orders including his supervised release, can be unleashed again on the public.
He has many many charges in his public record but I will highlight a few here:
243,4apc/F → 243.4(a)
Sexual battery involving unlawful restraint: touching someone’s intimate parts against their will, for sexual arousal, gratification, or abuse, while that person is unlawfully restrained.
287c2apc/F → 287(c)(2)(A)
Forcible oral copulation: oral sex against someone’s will through force, violence, coercion, threats, or fear of immediate bodily injury.
422pc/F → 422
Criminal threats: threatening death or serious bodily injury in circumstances that cause reasonable, sustained fear for someone’s safety or their immediate family’s safety.
236pc/F → 236
False imprisonment:unlawfully restricting another person’s freedom, such as confining or restraining them.
136,1a1pc/F → 136.1
Dissuading a witness or victim: knowingly and maliciously preventing or discouraging them from attending or testifying in a legal proceeding.
286c2apc → 286(c)(2)(A)
Forcible sodomy:anal intercourse against someone’s will through force, violence, coercion, threats, or fear of immediate bodily injury.
289a1apc → 289(a)(1)(A)
Forcible sexual penetration: penetration against someone’s will through force or coercion, including penetration with an object or fingers.
Everyone deserves a fair trial but how can his lawyer in good conscience argue for this release?